Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Combine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:23, 19 April 2007

Star Wars Combine

Fails web notability guidelines, reliable sources guidelines -- It is not notable and doesn't cite sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be added. Even links to some of the claimed academic articles would at least lead me to say provisional keep. Mister.Manticore 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. It's an online game, by the way. I wonder why the nominator didn't mention that. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 01:25Z
Delete. I see notability, but without valid reliable sources I've gotta vote delete. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add sources - I am/was a developer for the game, I can confirm it and "source" it all myself, I can try and find online sources for some of the information as well though. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just so you know, you can't assert sources through personal knowledge. While that may allow you to know things, the rest of Wikipedia can't rely on you being who you say you are. Now you can certainly use that knowledge to know where to look for sources, in which case I'll change my opinion, so good luck! Mister.Manticore 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI He is who he says he is But you have to remember there isnt a lot of sites that even mention Browser based games much less reviews which is why it is hard to find third party sites regarding it. WillSWC 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unofficial fangame - if someone presents some decent sources, I would reconsider. --Fredrick day 10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm a MMORPG player of an older game myself, but without any independent sources listed, let alone verifiable ones, this fails WP:V and WP:WEB with flying colors. RGTraynor 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced -- Whpq 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With sources (which it now has) is a fair article. --St.daniel ^talk 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources listed are self-referential, two of which are from the game's own website. Are there any reliable, independent, third-party, published sources? RGTraynor 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Such as...Not many sites do reviews of Online games much Browser Based games. WillSWC 22:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many sites do reviews of online games, especially browser based games, well, many is subjective but there are quite a few if you're willing to look. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People will look at the article before voicing their opinion, simply saying you've added sources won't work unless you actually add them. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the other deletes. Acalamari 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all others, especially RGT. Lemonsawdust 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the mere fact that it is a Star Wars video game makes it notable, it fails notability. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because its a unofficial game doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. Give me 5 days and I'll work on it and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. WillSWC 22:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found the following 5 Links relateing to the Star Wars Combine which, while not the greatest are "independent, third-party, published", http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=50 http://apexwebgaming.com/profile/162/Star-Wars-Combine http://www.omgn.com/gamesdirectory.php?Item_ID=872 http://top50.onrpg.com/index.php?a=stats&u=1000 http://www.games-academy.de/IGDA/tabelle.php?hauptteil=summaryreports WillSWC 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not according to WP:V. The first one is a bare general information list on one of the thousands of game rating webpages, where the "Review" and "Rating" boxes are blank. The second is the same, likewise with a blank Rating box, where the last update was nearly two years ago. The third is likewise two year old ad copy, with the Recent Review box blank. The fourth is a one paragraph ad copy, with a review of "growing game... and its going good. i wil advice u to take this game." The final one is a series of meeting reports from a Berlin game designers' club, at which one meeting in March 2006 discussed this game. These sources are not reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. Anything from the mainstream media? Anything in a book? Anything in Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, PC Gaming or the like? RGTraynor 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Err...Since when has any of those listed Magazines ever Reviewed a Browser Based Game? If they ever have I sure havent heard of them. They do MMORPG games, yes but you have to relize that a Browser Based game of any kind is not often if ever mentioned in main stream media even if its as large as a game such as Gaia Online. WillSWC 05:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How about it being on the Bobby Blackwolf Show, a podcast from All Games Radio? http://www.swcombine.com/technical/about/Bobby%20Blackwolf%20Interview.mp3 See the bottom link for the .mp3 (I didnt link directly to the mp3 since it takes a while to load and would kill Dial-up.) WillSWC 16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to read the relevant policies governing sources at WP:V and WP:RS, which would clear up your questions. That being said:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight."
"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

Blogs, bulletin board reviews and podcasts are not published. RGTraynor 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I'm not going to waste any more of my time argueing with you. Its obvious you don't understand that a Browser Based game rarely if ever warrants printed sources. Simply because somethings not in Game Informer doesnt mean its not worthey of an article. I am tired of perfectly good articles being removed. WillSWC 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AFDs last for five days so you still have approximately three days to add those sources. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ::::*<blockquote>"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."</blockquote>
 ::::Blogs, bulletin board reviews and podcasts are not published.  [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;RGTraynor&nbsp;</span>''']] 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
+:::*'''Comment:''' Well I'm not going to waste any more of my time argueing with you. Its obvious you don't understand that a Browser Based game rarely if ever warrants printed sources. Simply because somethings not in Game Informer doesnt mean its not worthey of an article. I am tired of perfectly good articles being removed. [[User:WillSWC|WillSWC]] 17:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 :*'''Comment:''' [[WP:AFD|AFD]]s last for five days so you still have approximately three days to add those sources. --[[User:TheSeer|TheSeer]] ([[User_talk:TheSeer|Talk]]ˑ[[Special:Contributions/TheSeer|Contribs]]) 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)